How to Fight
Collective SecurilY m
Relenilessi Class Sfrti^^le
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
YOUI^IG PEOPLES SOCIALIST LEAGUE
Um^ to- fi^ H/c^
This pamphlet was published originally as a series of ar-
ticles in the Socialist Appeal. Since its publication, there has been
developing a new pacifist, isolationist combination going under
the name of the "Keep America Out of War Committee." This
Committee has already held mass meetings in several cities, and
is looking forward to a national congress in the near future.
The mushroom growth of such movements is a normal
feature of a pre-war period — indeed, they must be understood as
an integral part of the war preparations. Their function is to ex-
ploit the widespread and genuine anti-war feelings among the
masses, and to divert these feelings into channels entirely harm-
less to the imperialist interests. Through the false and illusory
ideas which these movements spread, the masses are ideologically
disarmed; and, when the time comes for serious business, are
left ripe for plucking by the war-makers.
The "Keep America Out of War Committee," in the Call
it issued to its New York meeting, and in the speeches delivered
at that meeting, has already shown its true colors. The Call it-
self constitutes in reality a program — a program faithfully re-
flecting the hodge-podge social composition of the Committee,
ranging from the Altman-Thomas Socialists and the Lovestone-
ites to retired Major Generals and small-time Congressmen.
Any attack against capitalism, any mention even of the
relation between capitalism and war, is carefuly avoided. No
word is spoken of the role of the working class in the struggle
against war. The Call is addressed to "citizens," and citizens of
"our" country. Room for New Dealers is made by sidestepping
any direct criticism of Roosevelt's war policy, and by failing
even to recognize it as a war policy. A place is made even for
supporters of collective security through the demand for "Amer-
ican cooperation for international peace — but no alliance with
any nation or group of nations for war. . ."
At the New York meeting, the leading orators such as
Homer Martin and Maj. Gen. Wm. C. Rivers, after mild com-
plaints against collective security and meddling in other nations'
affairs, loudly called for the defense of the United States if "at-
tacked." As everyone knows, all imperialist nations, on all oc-
casions, are "attacked" and must "defend" themselves, when
they get ready to go to war. Even Italy explained how it was
attacked by Ethiopia ; and Japan, by China.
The "Keep America Out of War Committee," it should
be clearly noticed, is in no sense whatever a United Front. It
is a political bloc of various tendencies, based not upon a plan
for joint specifc actions (as would be the case with a united
front), but upon a political program. Enough of this program
has already come out to characterize it. As indicated sufficiently
in the references I have given — and summed up for that matter
in the fatally illusion-breeding name of the organization — ^this
program is thoroughly deceptive and reactionary.
Ironically enough there are to be found on this Committee
(in some cases perhaps without their having been fully aware
of its implications) many individuals in the past noted for their
opposition to the Stalinist American League against War and
Fascism, recently re-christened the League for Peace and De-
mocracy. The new Committee is distinguished from the Amer-
ican League in its early stages only by being much further to
One must speak the truth plainly on the issue of war. The
s"Keep America Out of War" movement is in no respect a blow
at the war and the war-makers. It is a blow at the revolutionary
struggle against war. It is a device for the deception and dis-
orientation of the people, above all of the workers. That is
The struggle against the war is the struggle against capi-
talism. The way to fight the war \s to make the workers' revo-
lution, and that is the only way to fight it. This is the truth;
and whoever hides this truth is guilty of crime and treachery
against the people.
I— BROWDER DEFENDS IMPERIALISM
When Marxists state that StaHnism now functions in the
world labor movement as a counter-revolutionary force, as the
chief obstacle in the struggle for workers' power and for so-
cialism, there are still, of course, many who do not believe them.
There are, for example, honest members and sympathizers of
the Communist Party itself who think that this altogether sober
and scientific analysis of the Marxists is the slander and ravings
of "mad dogs." Such persons are compelled by their own con-
science to think in this manner.
They diflfer in their whole moral makeup from the cynical,
depraved and shameless bureaucrats who actually run the Com-
munist Parties of the world. In their own hearts, they sincerely
want socialism; and they believe that the only road toward so-
cialism lies through support of the Communist Party, which they
mistakenly look upon as the heir to — instead of the most bitter
enemy of — the October Revolution. If they understood the true
role of Stalinism, they would abandon it overnight. That is
why we must dissect every concrete manifestation of Stalinism,
in order to remove the false outer skin and lay bare the internal
It will need no argument to prove that today the war
question is the decisive question. Since it is the decisive question,
the answers given to it provide the surest touchstone to the
character of every political movement. To anyone who doubts
what the Stalinist answer is and means, the New Republic of
February 2 offers an easy and spectacular way of clearing up
In this issue of the New Republic there is published a de-
bate between Earl Browder and Charles A. Beard on the general
subject of "Collective Security." I propose to analyze Browder's
arguments in this debate, as well as those of Dr. Beard, and in
particular to discuss the whole conception of "collective secu-
rity." I wish, to begin with, to consider the point of view from
which Browder writes.
Naturally enough, Stalinists pretend to their own followers
that they write from the point of view of the international pro-
letariat. Even a brief survey of Browder's article in the New
Republic can demonstrate beyond any doubt that he is reason-
ing and writing from the point of view of the defense of U. S.
In no line does Browder even suggest that his policy is a
working class policy, or an independent policy of any kind. He
himself speaks openly for Roosevelt's policy. The cover of the
magazine correctly reads: "Earl Browder — for the President's
Policy." "Clearly, then," Browder writes, "in our country the
task is to organize effective support, behind the President's
policy, of the 27,000,000 who voted for him in 1936." Reply-
ing to Bruce Bliven's objection that his policy is peculiarly
"Russian," Browder says: "We will not quarrel with Mr. Bliven
as to how the policy could be best 'framed in American terms' ;
we are willing to leave that to the President. . ."
The President, according to Marxism, is the chief political
executive of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, in this country.
Browder, by his own words, accepts the war policy of the chief
executive of the bourgeoisie, accepts it one hundred per cent,
and is willing to leave its fuller formulation altogether to that
In Browder' s article, the class struggle — according to Marx-
ism the motive force of history, from an understanding of which
all Marxian analysis of all social and political problems proceeds
— is mentioned only once. There is no word of the class strug-
gle in the discussion, either of the causes of, or the cure for, war.
On the one occasion where the class struggle appears, it is cited
as one of the major weaknesses of the United States as against
Japan; and, it therefore follows, as a factor which must be
overcome if an "effective peace policy" is to be achieved.
Browder's argument thus advocates the suppression of the
class struggle, as a necessary part of the means for achieving what
he calls an effective peace pohcy. This does not appear so odd
when we understand that in reality Browder wants to achieve
not a peace but a war policy for the United States: suppression
of the class struggle is, in fact, necessary for an effective war
policy on the part of a capitalist nation. "But America, rich
and full of potential booty, is still considered by thejvorld to be
in a pacifist funk, is torn by a constitutional crisis and sharp
class struggles, and contains powerful forces that would welcome
Japanese aggression for their own fascist ends."
Browder's article is filled with the frankest jingo appeals
to the interests of U. S. imperialism. "A continuance of isola-
tion policies by the United States will surely convince the arro-
gant militarists of Tokyo that now is the time for them to take
over the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam and Alaska, as guarantees
against the future, when the United States might dare. From
that it would not be a large step to recall how much more suc-
cessful are Japanese than Americans in cultivating the beautiful
and rich lands of California." This is the crux of Browder's
He continues it by stating that the United States is in more
danger from Japan than is the Soviet Union. "A continuance
of the same line (pursued up to now by Japan) leads her not
to Vladivostock, Habarovsk and Chita, but rather to Manila,
Honolulu and Nome." That is to say, Browder's central argu-
ment in favor of his own war position is that his policy alone
can protect and defend — what? The working class.-' The strug-
gle for socialism? Not in the least. His policy, he says in his
own words, alone can defend the possessions of U.S. imperialism.
There is nothing more revealing in this article than Brow-
der's use of "our" and "we." In every instance these words
stand for the United States as a nation — that is, for the impe-
rialist state. For Marx, the workers had no fatherland until they
conquered one for themselves. Browder is less lonely. "Our
country" appears a dozen times. "If we continue to desert them
to their fate, as Mr. Bliven advocates, we will have no one to
blame but ourselves when we have to take up the full military
burden imder more unfavorable conditions." Browder speaks
these days with the full rounded phrases of a statesman. But
not, he is careful to make clear, of a statesman of the working
class. "We," says Browder, we and the other representatives
of the imperialist United States, will be ready to assume "the
full military burden" even "under more favorable conditions."
The most startling and naked of all the sentences in this
remarkable article is, however, the following: "Only the cour-
ageous implementing of the policy laid down by President Roose-
velt in Chicago can save our country, and all the capitalist
world, from unparalleled reaction and catastrophe." Criticism
itself becomes tongue-tied when faced with such a remark.
Whom is the working class called upon by Browder to
save? He answers: "Our country, and all the capitalist world."
And what must this capitalist world be saved from ? He answers :
"From catastrophe." But what is catastrophe for the capitalist
world? Catastrophe for the capitalist world is, and is only the
socialist revolution. Browder's entire article is summed up in
this clarion call: join with me to save capitalism from the so-
II— WHAT IS COLLECTIVE SECURITY?
The current war program of the Stalinists is summed up
in the phrase, "Collective Security." Earl Browder's half of
the New Republic debate with Charles A. Beard, subsequently
reprinted in The Daily Worker, is entitled "For Collective Se-
curity." The Communist Party has recently issued several pam-
phlets with the same title. We must enquire further into the
true meaning of Collective Security.
At first glance, the program of Collective Security seems
reasonable and practical to many people. "Clearly," argues Brow-
der, "in this relation of forces, there does exist the possibility
of preventing the spread of war, and of extinguishing the wars
going on, provided the peace-loving 90 per cent can arrive at
a concerted program of action, at least to a degree in some re-
lation to that of the concerted action of the Triple Alliance of
the "anti-Communist' bloc of fascist states. . . Considering the eco-
nomic resources of the war-makers, it would clearly be sufficient
to bring them quickly to a halt if the United States, France,
Britain and the Soviet Union should jointly declare an embargo
upon all economic transactions with the aggressors. . ."
How can anyone object to such a calm and virtuous pro-
posal? No wonder Browder is indignant at the scoundrels who
insist on criticism!
But let us, approaching this as all questions from the point
of view of the interests of the working class, ask: First, even
assuming that Collective Security might preserve peace, is it a
correct program; and, second, whether it can in fact preserve
peace — or whether it is even designed to preserve peace. The
Collective Security — ^No. 4
answer to both of these questions requires a brief account of
the origin of the idea of Collective Security.
The idea of Collective Security is not an invention of Brow-
der, nor of Litvinov nor of Stalin. It arose in the camp of the
Allied Powers during the latter part of the War of 1914-18,
^ and was part of the basis for the construction of the "Versailles
[ system." Its chief early advocate was Aristide Briand, the rene-
j gade from socialism who became during that time an outstanding
f spokesman for French imperialism.
j The theory of Collective Security was as follows: The Al-
lied Powers had won the war, and taken for themselves the
rich spoils of conquest. France and Great Britain, particularly.
being satisfied with the results, glutted with colonies and other
booty, wanted a method of protecting the spoils against any
rival who might try to make a bid for them, either from among
the defeated Central Powers, or from their own less satisfied
allies. Briand wanted to solidify the imperialist division of the
world as it existed at the time of the Versailles Treaty.
Collective Security was the plan for accomplishing just this
sohdification. All of the nations (united in the League) were
to take joint steps against any nation which might attempt to
break through the existing imperialist division. In addition, it
was, of course, understood that collective action would above all
be exercised against a bid for power by the working class of any
nation — which would naturally be the greatest of all threats
against the existing imperialist division.
It was as if two coalitions of gangs had been fighting for
control of a racket, in, let us say, Brooklyn. The winning gang,
having consolidated its victory, decreed that henceforth "peace
and order" were to reign over Brooklyn. All the gangsters to-
gether would take collective action against any rival gang which
attempted to muscle in. And, of course, similar collective ac-
tion would likewise be taken against any group of honest citizens
who tried to break up the rackets themselves.
In the case of the gang, it is clear enough that Collective
Action is hardly the answer to the problems of good citizens.
Their interest is to smash all of the gangs, and to get rid alto-
gether of the rackets.
The case of the imperialist powers is exactly the same.
Even if Collective Security could preserve "peace," that would
mean simply protecting the dominant imperialist positions of
the Anglo-French bloc; protecting their right to exploit the
major part of the world; safeguarding their rule of starvation
and terror in India, the Near East, Indo-China, Africa; guaran-
teeing for eternity their right to the exploitation and oppression
of the workers in the home countries.
The workers have absolutely no interest in the preserva-
tion of any imperialist division whatever, no matter what nation
or group of nations a given division favors. Their interest is to
overthrow the whole imperialist system; and, if mankind is not
to revert to barbarism, to do so in the shortest possible time.
The program of Collective Security, which is the program for
the preservation of an Anglo-French dominated imperialist sys-
tem, is thus crassly and directly counter-revolutionary.
However, in any case the assumption that the program of
Collective Security might preserve peace is directly contrary to
fact. Italy, Germany, Japan do not begin military operations,
do not try to upset the existing division of the world because
Mussohni, Hitler and the Mikado are madmen or "war-lovers."
They are driven to military adventure by iron necessity. Their
only alternative is economic and social death for their own na-
tional capitaUsm, and they are fighting desperately against that
death. No conceivable system of treaties or Leagues or "peace-
ful economic sanctions" can stop them. A man faced with cer-
tain death in one direction will fight against any odds in the
The originators of Collective Security know all this. And
that is why they have never pretended to themselves that Col-
lective Security is in reality a "peace program." It is a program
to preserve peace (i.e., the status quo) as long as possible and
convenient to the dominant powers; and in doing so to prepare
for war they know to be inevitable on the most favorable
physical and moral terms.
Collective Security is a way of cementing military alliances
in one of the imperialist coalitions. It has the great advantage of
making the members of the opposing coalition appear to be
the "breakers of the peace," thereby permitting the mobilization
of popular sentiment against them.
This last feature explains why Browder has now so ardently
taken up the slogan of Collective Security. He knows, as well
as Briand knew and Auriol and Chautemps and Daladier know
today, that Collective Security is in the last analysis not a pro-
gram for peace but a program for war. And he is using Collec-
tive Security in his attempt to make the war which he believes
will aid his master popular among the people of the United
States. Collective Security is his banner for enlisting the masses
in this country in the next war of American imperialism.
Ill— THE DREAM OF ISOLATION
The idea of "collective security" has never been popular
with the majority of the people of this country. This has been
proved on a number of occasions, most conspicuously during the
period following the last war. In spite of the fact that the war
itself showed that neutrality for the United States in a major
European conflict was impossible, as soon as the War was over
Americans wanted to steer clear of Europe.
This sentiment was reflected in the Senate. Wilson came
back from Versailles with his head full of the new Treaty,
Briand's plans for collective security, and the grandiose scheme
for the League of Nations. The Senate blocked adherence to
the League, and in doing so undoubtedly represented majority
Even now, with the entire Administration, especially Roose-
velt and Hull, driving for collective security, and with the out-
standing bourgeois press holding the same perspective, the
anti -collective security Ludlow Amendment came close to a
majority in the House of Representatives.
The majority of the people has been traditionally in favor
of "isolation"; or, as it is often called, "neutrahty." There are
historical reasons for this feehng, so different from opinion in
Europe, even among the masses. For one thing, there is the
important geographical fact that the United States is far away
from any other great power, whereas the European nations are
situated right next to each other. Again, there is the carry-over
from the hopes of the American Revolution, which was to build
a new civili2ation freed from the conflicts of the Old World.
And, in addition, there were the unparalleled resources and
opportunities for expansion on the North American Continent.
There was always, of course, hypocrisy and unreality in
the idea of "isolation." Isolation from Europe was found to
be perfectly consistent with the ruthless extermination of the
native inhabitants of North America. The Monroe Doctrine,
dating from the early years of United States history, was hardly
an "isolationist" conception. In actuality, from tiie point of
view of United States capitalism, isolation and neutrality mean
only that up to a certain point in its history the United States
had a sufficient sphere for exploitation and advance in the
Americas, and did not need to develop a "world outlook."
As the United States entered the imperialist stage of its
development, the economic basis for the policy of isolation was
destroyed. The idea of isolation Hngered on in a vacuum. This
was already clear in the Spanish War. It was fully shown by the
War of 1914-18. The ramifications of American capitahsm had
become world-wide, and it was drawn irresistibly into the vortex
of world affairs.
With the last War, the United States became a creditor
nation, and has since become the first and most powerful of the
imperialist powers. Its whole internal economy now depends
upon its stake in the world market. Without its foreign trade
and foreign capital investments, it would be bankrupt within
six months. Far from decreasing in importance, the foreign
trade and investments must necessarily play an ever more cru-
In the New Republic debate over collective security be-
tween Earl Browder and Charles A. Beard, there is no doubt
at all that Dr. Beard has much the best of the argument. He
understands what Browder's argument means, that it means ad-
vocacy of and preparation for war; and with his mature and
rather tired irony he exposes Browder's meaning. He knows
what Roosevelt is up to: "The Roosevelt Administration, be-
wildered and baffled by the economic impasse at home, is em-
ploying sentimental coverages for excursions abroad."
He knows how "peace-loving" France and Great Britain
are: "Having all the European territory required by their tradi-
tional ambitions and loaded with the spoils of empire. Great
Britain and France do want peace — at their price. . . The great
democratic powers want peace and the possession of all they
have. . ." He knows that Italy and Germany and Japan are
driven by conflicts too great to be stopped by any peaceful "quar-
antines": "I find in history no justification whatever for as-
suming as truth that Italy, Germany and Japan would surrender
unconditionally to a grand quarantine."
He knows also just what "democracy" is worth to imperial-
ism, and just how democracy is served by imperialist war: "Does
any one conversant with British history really believe that the
operations of the British government since 1914, let us say,
have been controlled by some conception of democracy, as dis-
tinguished from British interests in the Mediterranean, Africa
and elsewhere? Or the operations of the French government?
What did these governments do for democracy in Germany be-
tween 1919 and 1933? . . . And if it comes to another war for
democracy against the three offenders, have we any ground for
expecting beneficent results in the way of a universal democratic
advance? All I ask any one to consider on this point is the
record. . ."
Lastly, Beard knows the real direction of Roosevelt's pro-
gram, which Browder so ardently defends: "That Roosevelt
would take them in (to the next world war) swiftly if it comes
is highly probable. . ."
Beard knows all these things about the Roosevelt -Browder
program, about collective security. But what does he propose
in its place? In the debate he makes no explicit proposals. His
views, developed elsewhere in his writings, are left implicit.
They are the views of isolationism; he wants the United States
to stay home and mind its own business.
But, in truth, this alternative is no alternative at all; and
Beard's program is no program. The truth is that the business
of U. S. imperialism is everybody's business. The truth is that
foreign trade and capital markets are necessary to U. S. capitalism
if it is not to collapse. There are not enough markets to go
around among the powers. The competition for them is a life
and death question for each power. Therefore, in the end, they
—including the United States — fight each other for them.
To assume that the U. S. capitalists, controlling the U. S.
government, will not fight under such circumstances, is to as-
sume that they will voluntarily abdicate, will stand by while the
social system which supports them goes bankrupt. Does Dr.
Beard, with all his historical knowledge and his irony, make
such an assumption?
The idea that isolation is possible for imperialist United
States is thus an empty illusion, utterly unrelated to historical
and economic reality. If it and those who advocate it are less
treacherous than collective security, the illusion of isolation is
also a most powerful danger. For it is an illusion which leads
the masses away from the genuine fight against war, dissipates
their energies in empty air, and leaves them helpless when the
war breaks out in spite of —in part because of —the illusion.
IV— MARXISM AND COLLECTIVE SECURITY
In their editorial notice preceding the debate between Earl
Browder and Charles A. Beard, the editors of the New Republic
write: "No more important subject is before the American
people today than the question of foreign policy usually de-
scribed by the alternatives of 'collective security' and 'isolation.' "
The hearings on the naval appropriation measure before
the House of Representatives Naval Affairs Committee were
similarly conducted in the light of this same alternative: "col-
lective security" or "isolation." Every speaker who appeared
before the Committee supported, with whatever personal modi-
fications, one or another of these two policies.
Beard and Browder, also, throughout the course of their
debate, assume that the choice is limited to these two policies.
Neither of them makes any mention of any third possibility.
Each of them takes for granted that if he can refute the position
of his opponent, then his own view is thereby proved.
This should serve to indicate that the two positions of
"collective security" and of "isolation," in spite of the seeming
contradiction between them, do in point of fact share impor-
tant features in common. However great the gap between them
may appear, they are in fundamental respects alike.
The two positions are alike, in the first place, in that neither
analyzes the actual cause of modern war. Both argue merely
on the surface, as if war were due to the wickedness of individ-
ual men, the eflFect of this or that law, or the success of some
clever bit of diplomacy.
They are alike, secondly, in proposing a solution for "the
problem of war" within the framework of capitalism. Collec-
tive security and isolation equally pre-suppose the continuing
existence of capitalism.
Thirdly, they are alike in that each offers as its solution
a program for adoption by the government of the United States:
that is, each proposes as its answer to the war crisis a set of
actions to be performed by an imperialist state.
As a consequence, both of these policies, both collective
security and isolation, are in the last analysis not programs
against war at all, but are part of the preparation for war.
They act as part of the preparation for war in a number of
decisive ways. For example, since both of them, and their
advocates presuppose support of the imperialist government of
the United States, they aid in building up attitudes of loyalty
toward that government; and thus, when the government goes
to war, as it will, the same attitudes of loyalty will keep support
behind it for the war.
Both policies, moreover, by hiding the true nature of war,
of the U. S. government, and of imperialism in general, spread
disastrous illusions among the people, and divert any genuine
struggle against imperialist war into a chase after impossible
Even more fatal is the fact that both of these policies, each
in its own way, impotent to fight against war, serves to ^ve
moral justification to the war when it comes. This happens
partly because, as the last war showed, the leading spokesmen,
known publicly as "the leaders of the peace movement," go
over to open support of the war as soon as it starts. The masses
reason: If these men, who lead the fight for peace, support the
war, then it must be a good war; and, even if it is not, we
cannot oppose it effectively without their help. But these policies
themselves provide moral justification apart from the men who
advocate them. The war will be propagandized as a lawless
breaking of collective security, or a violation of neutrality and
isolation; and thus the very fight for peace will seem to the
masses to demand a war to enforce the "peace policy."
Marxism, therefore, does not answer collective security by
an appeal for isolation. Marxism, bases its answer to the prob-
lem of war squarely and bluntly upon a truthful analysis of the
nature of war and of capitahsm. Any other basis must lead to
lies, illusions, or demagogy.
Marxism points out that so long as capitalism endures,
wars will come, that war under capitalism is not an "accident"
or an "exceptional event" but an integral part of the very mech-
anism of capitalism. War is just as much a part of capitalism
as are economic crises. You cannot have capitalism without hav-
ing periodic crises and you cannot have capitalism without
periodically having wars. The causes which bring about
wars, the inescapable need for every advanced capitalist nation
to attempt to expand its markets, gain cheaper sources of raw
materials, find new outlets beyond the internal market for capi-
tal investment, can none of them be eliminated without elimi-
nating capitalism itself.
Every capitalist government, above all every imperialist gov-
ernment — including outstandingly the U. S. government — is
therefore committed to war "as an instrument of national policy"
by the very fact that it is a capitalist government. To ask it to
renounce war is like asking a living man to renounce oxygen.
From these considerations, it follows that the struggle
against war, the genuine struggle, is simply an aspect of the
struggle against capitalism and for socialism. This is the truth
of the matter, however unpleasant a truth it may seem. If
capitalism necessarily brings about war, you obviously cannot
get rid of war without getting rid of capitalism. To divorce
the struggle against war from the struggle against capitalism
is in reality to give up the struggle against war, so far as any
possible effectiveness is concerned.
This simple truth is systematically obscured by both the
ignorant and the conscious liars. So many persons wish to sat-
isfy their consciences by feeling that they are "working for
peace"; but at the same time they do not wish to take the risk
of working against capitalism. To these persons we must say:
Deliberately or unconsciously you are fooling yourselves. Which
do you really want — peace or capitalism ? You cannot have both.
If you are unwilling to give up capitalism, then your pretended
fight for peace is a fraud, and a fraud which aids no one but
the war -makers.
The day-by-day class struggle of the workers, which by
strengthening the working class is implicity directed against
capitalism, is thus a far more realistic means of checking the
war preparations than all of the pacifism, isolation and collective
security ever imagined. Fear of what the workers may do is the
only real hindrance to the war-makers. They laugh at, and
exploit to their own ends, the propaganda of isolation and col-
In the end, however, the overthrow of capitalism itself is
the only conceivable means for stopping war. Socialism, and it
alone, will end war because sociahsm, and it alone, will root
out the causes of war. The program of the socialist revolution,
when the question is finally and fully understood, is the only
This does not mean that it is impossible for revolutionary
socialists to unite with others not yet accepting their perspective
to further certain specific objectives. Both concrete actions, such
as boycotts and demonstrations, and even primarily agitational
measures directed against specific moves of the war-makers
("Withdraw all U. S. Armed Forces from the Far East,"
"Against the Naval Appropriations," "All War Funds to the
Unemployed") can legitimately serve a hmited purpose. But
for the revolutionary socialists these must always be subordinated
to the general perspective of the class struggle.
To Browder and to Beard, then, as to Roosevelt, the Marx-
ists in the end give one short reply: The answer to war, the
only answer, is the socialist revolution.
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and
YOUNG PEOPLE'S SOCIALIST LEAGUE (4th International)
ENLIST NOW IN THE HGHT
IF you are against the wholesale slaughter
of the workers of the world;
IF you are against the world-wide tyranny
IF you are against the criminal destruction
of the results of centuries of labor in cre-
ating the wealth and culture of the world;
THEN YOU ARE AGAINST
SOCIALISM ALONE CAN END WAR!
THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY ASKS FOR YOUR
SUPPORT IN ITS ANTI-WAR CAMPAIGN.
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
The Socialist Appeal — weekly newspaper
The New International — monthly theoretical magazine
The Challenge of Youth — monthly publication of the YPSL
The Socialist Workers Party
The Young Peoples Socialist League
116 University Place, New York City